Non Compos Mentis: Mentally incapable of managing one's own affairs; not of sound mind and hence not legally responsible; mentally incompetent; not in control of one's mind; lacking mental ability to understand the nature, consequences, and effect of a situation or transaction.

torsdag, november 04, 2010

If you are against capital punishment because innocent people could be wrongfully executed, then would you agree that incarceration should not be permitted as well, since people could also be wrongfully imprisoned, especially in a highly corrupted nation? If you think the difference is that reparations can be made for wrongful confinement but not for wrongful executions, then the assumptions here are that 1) the truth will always be discovered in time for there to be meaningful and adequate compensation for innocent convicts, and that 2) death is always worse than losing your freedom/independence for nothing. These assumptions need to be bolstered. J.S. Mill, for example, would say that the loss of liberty is much worse than death. Patrick Henry, who uttered "Give me liberty or give me death!", is also in Mill's camp.

If you are a non-vegetarian who thinks that bestiality should be banned because animals cannot give consent for cross-species sex, why do you think it is all right to violate animal rights by eating them but not all right to violate animal rights by having sex with them?

If you are a non-vegetarian who thinks that there is nothing morally wrong with eating animals because they are incapable of rational reasoning, would you also say it is morally permissible to eat human infants and severely retarded patients?

If you think incestuous couples should be banned from giving birth because their children could be physically harmed, would you also forbid biologically unrelated parents with hereditary diseases or extremely damaging habits (e.g., chain smoking) from having children?

If you are anti-incest because it is unnatural (actually whether it is really as unnatural as one would immediately assume is questionable, since members of the ruling classes in certain ancient states - e.g., Egypt, Hawaii, China, etc. - did practise incest), are you also anti-contraceptives since having protected sex is also very unnatural from an evolutionary standpoint?

If you think homosexuals should be given the right to marriage because no one can help whom he falls in love with, would you grant the same right to incestuous and polyamorous lovers too?

If you think military conscription is morally allowable to safeguard a country's economic and political interests, would you agree that it is also morally allowable to force women to bear children to fulfil their country's economic needs (both cases demand the sacrifice of one's right to bodily autonomy for the good of the society, and are thus analogous)?

If you think marijuana should be banned because it is a harmful substance, would you say that alcohol and cigarettes should also be banned, since they pose greater health risks than marijuana?

If you think prostitution should not be legalised because it is immoral, would you also make it illegal for people to accept jobs they do not genuinely enjoy? In other words, is it okay to sell our souls for livelihood but not okay to sell our bodies? In addition, why is it okay to earn income by marketing our non-sexual talents (e.g., singing, dancing, etc.) but not okay to earn income by marketing our sexual talents (e.g., the ability to administer really enjoyable blow jobs, etc.)? If you think that allowing prostitution would worsen the spread of STDs, then you should read this article on the benefits of legalising prostitution - doing so actually reduces health risks.

If you have any more questions to add, feel free to comment or send me an email.

...hmmm. Perhaps disgusting isn't morally wrong (although some of those things are), but wrong enough. Given this is a free world, don't I have a right to be free from living in a society full of disgusting behaviour?